fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
User blog:Jgparks/ Where Have All The Candidates Gone?
Easier Ballot Access Can Cure the Nations Ills By J. Greg Parks There was a time when men and women of great stature decided to run for elective office. Many of these men and women would serve with distinction and return to private life. Today is not one of those times. Studies show that fewer and fewer people are voting in elections. Some believe it is a general apathy to the politics of the day that is turning people away from the voting booth. Others believe that the politicians are corrupt and nothing that a voter does is going to change the government. I believe that the problem in Pennsylvania is the difficulty candidates’ face in gaining ballot access to challenge the status quo. The Pennsylvania Constitution states, “Elections shall be free and equal;” however the state has one of the most restrictive ballot access procedures in the country, disenfranchising voters and candidates alike. There is nothing as frustrating as entering a voting booth on Election Day and seeing a slate of unopposed candidates. Unless there is some general uprising, such as was the case with the Pennsylvania Legislature’s pay raise, there seems to be little motivation for the average citizen to stomp through the blustery weather in January and February to get on the ballot. It is hard to believe that would-be candidates are required to collect signatures, as few as 10 or as many as 2000, in a four week period. The rationale behind this system is that if a person is serious about a political run, getting signatures is a good test of a candidate’s dedication. While it is true that incumbents must meet the same requirements; they already have a network in place to gather signatures. The reality is that for an upstart candidate, Republican or Democrat, he or she needs to have twice as many signatures as required to survive challenges to their nominating petitions. The petition problem is an even greater hurdle for a third party or independent candidates. In the 2004 Presidential elections President Bush and Sen. John Kerry needed only 2,000 signatures, but Ralph Nader needed over 25,000. Once he had collected over 50,000 signatures the Democratic Party challenged the petitions and succeeded in having Nader removed from the ballot. Tom Barnes of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that, Commonwealth Court today issued its long-awaited decision on the independent presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader, ordering the consumer advocate off the ballot in Pennsylvania. The court said it had reviewed 51,273 petition signatures submitted by Nader campaign workers and found only 18,818 were valid -- far short of the 25,697 valid names he needed to run for president in Pennsylvania.' Peter Jackson of the Boston Globe described one of the reasons for the ballot challenge, “Democrats have had mixed success in their effort to keep Nader off the ballot in battleground states where they fear he could siphon votes from Kerry.” Not that the Republicans are much better in supporting voter choice. In the 2000 Presidential contest Patrick Buchanan faced similar challenges in Pennsylvania which he survived and remained on the ballot. Of course both of the established parties argue that they are doing this for the voter’s benefit and eliminating candidates that are not serious contenders. Yet in the same breath, as noted earlier, both parties claim that collecting signatures is proof of a candidate’s seriousness. If Pennsylvania’s election process is to be “free and fair” reform is needed. Perhaps one of the better solutions to the ballot access problem here lies just across the border in Maryland. There, if interested citizens meet the age and residency requirements for the office they seek, all that is required is a filing fee. According to Maryland Election Law for independent candidates: A candidate who seeks nomination by petition may not have the candidate's name placed on the general election ballot unless the candidate files with the appropriate board petitions signed by not less than 1% of the total number of registered voters who are eligible to vote for the office for which the nomination by petition is sought. With this system, the candidate’s filing fee is evidence of their intent to run for office. If we reformed the system here, all citizens in Pennsylvania who are eligible, could simply pay the fee and start campaigning for office. However, that is what the Democratic Party, Republican Party and career politicians’ fear. A system that opens the process up to the average citizen or increases competition in the primary and general election could lead to real change in the way the legislature in Harrisburg does business. Elections should be about choices, or changes in direction and the current system fails to offer voters either. The simple elimination of petitions, as per the Maryland system, would save countless man hours, free up the courts from signature challenges, and give candidates the opportunity to be heard. Once a candidate is heard the voters can make an informed decision and choose the person who best represents their views. Groups such as The Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition are taking the battle to Harrisburg. The coalition was drafted a Voters Choice Act and is looking for sponsors in the Pennsylvania Legislature. Concerned citizens could contact this group or other like it to help open up the process. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not guarantee election victory; however, the terms “free and fair” do speak to the opportunity of the candidates to get on the ballot and the electorate to be afforded a choice in their government. Category:Blog posts